Buffalo's system is a short 1 line lrt system which runs downtown in traffic like a trolley. I don't think this act alone can make up for the many freeways and auto dependent transportaion planning of the last xx years. Mcdonald's agreed, and ignored the line. Places which traditionally had more extensive subway vs freeway systems have more riders. Places with newer lines like Buffalo, Los Angeles and Baltimeore have to work harder if they're trying to even out the system. Density and concentration of jobs alone won't ensure transit use if the city is designed for easy car use. Walmarts, Ikeas and office parks are car, not pedestrian friendly. Only those without choice would take transit to these locations. Some transit is designed mainly for commuting to park and ride lots, which is more expensive and inneficient. Instead of having revenue producing valuable land around stations which will encourage more riders. In this system it is necessary to build subsidized parking lots for picky customers who decide to take the train that day. Also, having all of the trains and drivers go one way in the morning and then sit idle until the rush hour , creates the need for idle workers and trains. Although the tickets for these commuter trains cost more than for conventional transit, they pay a smaller part of their subsidized ride, especially when combined with park and rides. The price of gas, availability of parking and road space, and commuting patterns all play a major role in the attractiveness of transit. Detroit might be a huge city with huge office density downtown, (Rennaissance etc), but I'm sure there is some less dense town of 20,000 out there in Japan or Europe that would use their monorail 10x as much, based largely on less car friendly land use policies.
